Search questions

• Question by: Stephen Knight
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Stephen Knight AM: Just one quick point and that is, is it legally possible to spend Section 106 or CIL money outside the boundary of a planning authority?

• Question by: Murad Qureshi
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Murad Qureshi AM: Can I raise two or three issues. The first one, Eddie, I am grateful that you mentioned the canals at the outset. It is just unfortunate they do not show up on the maps. I have no doubts that residential developers will be eying those canal sides very eagerly, because I suspect they can enhance the values of the developments by up to 40%. That is the residential side. However, I am more concerned that they are used during the works construction on the site. I think this is going to be a huge development site, over...

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Jenette Arnold OBE (Deputy Chair): I have a couple of questions, one for Sir Eddie, and one for Victoria Hills. Sir Eddie, in your introduction you mentioned that the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) master plan was similar to the blueprint adopted by the LLDC. I know, as one of the three Assembly Members for the area covered by the LLDC, and was heavily involved in the consultation and now I keep a very strong watching brief on what is going on, that many aspects of the LLDC’s vision has changed. For instance, the LLDC plan started...

• Question by: Richard Tracey
• Meeting date: 17 December 2014

Richard Tracey AM: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Edward, can I first of all thank you for organising for the letter to Kit Malthouse [AM] about Wormwood Scrubs, which of course has been circulated to all of us. All of us on this side have received emails from many people who certainly were not constituents of ours but had some concerns, so I think it has helped very much to clarify, and I am grateful to Kit for writing to the Mayor about it. First of all though, I was going to say there is a lot of experience in this...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Am I right in saying that the target for the percentage of time spent on community fire safety at station level has risen from 6 per cent to 8 per cent? Looking at the actual performance last year, over a third of our stations exceeded 10 per cent and one of them, Sutton, according to the figures, spent 25 per cent of their time on community fire safety. Is not 8 per cent really too low as a target, therefore, and should we not be getting the average a lot higher?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

I appreciate one size does not fit all and I totally agree with that. Would it be fair to say that the way to go forward would be where there is an excellent product, that you would like to use best practice principles in order to extend those practices across the capital?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

If some can achieve above 20 per cent, can we not encourage the others too?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

You will obviously keep us updated as you make your progress round?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Indeed. That is showing up in the home safety checks which I think have risen from around 9,000 a couple of years ago to approximately 20,000 in the year that has just ended and the target for the current year is approximately 30,000. Even if you add all that up, that is 40,000-50,000 home safety checks. One or two per cent of Londoners have had a home safety check. Should we not be looking for a real huge step forward in this area?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 08 November 2006

Thank you, Sir Ken. I think we would all like to congratulate those success stories that you have just highlighted. Obviously the picture we are getting is that it is a patchy performance across London. Would you agree with that?